Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-07-03-Speech-2-025"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010703.1.2-025"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, stones are neither left nor right wing, they are simply anti-democratic. And the best way to deal with stones and anti-democracy is to defend our own European democracy, explain to our citizens why we need Europe, enter into a debate with them and show them concrete results.
My group Chairman has already expressed thanks, and I should like to echo this, in respect of Mr Persson, Mr Danielsson and Mrs Lindh, who have recently cooperated with us in a very concrete manner to give shape to a number of matters.
I would like to say a few words on Europe’s underlying rationale and on a matter that our citizens understand very well, namely foreign policy. Citizens realise that Europe was, in itself, probably the most successful conflict prevention project of the last century, and they also realise that Europe can contribute towards peace and stability.
Over the past few months, under the Swedish presidency and in close cooperation with Commissioner Patten and Mr Solana, we have witnessed how, concerning a number of important issues, Europe has played a more pivotal role, as it were. That was the case in the ‘Everything but Arms’ sector, which represented a movement towards a more open Europe in trading terms to achieve a world trade round in which development was central. That was also the case in our protest against the American ‘missile defence system’ initiative and our belief that we need to invest in conflict prevention more efficiently and at an earlier stage. That is similarly the case now that we are on the brink of a war in the Middle East. Despite this, we have tried to bring both parties around the negotiating table, thus considerably strengthening Europe’s presence in recent months. And that was also the case with regard to possibly the most sensitive and most complex problem for Europe, FYROM/Macedonia.
I would like to comment on conflict prevention, because I am very well aware that the Swedish presidency has exerted a great deal of pressure in a direction which appeals to us greatly.
We could, of course, invest enormous amounts in technologies in the hope that that would provide us with a safety shield, as it were. I do not deny the fact that we need new technological developments, but this American initiative is not the right way forward. What we need to do is to invest in diplomacy, conflict prevention and citizens’ networks and to enter into all those development aid and trade commitments which, together, create stability in the world. In that way, we can prevent those dozens of conflicts which are taking place at the moment from continuing to spread.
This form of thinking in terms of foreign policy is a new security concept. In my opinion, the Swedes have helped shape that new security concept in Europe. This is a European value which, I believe, is appropriate and which suits us very well. I should like to thank you for this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples